ofc they would but what could they do...... not much as it would be within the rules

unless they started saying how much you had to pay ect which would go against the whole idea of the marquee player and they could just up the cap

I'm sure the RFL would have to implement new rules for the introduction of a marquee player allowance.

You seem to be under the misconception that the RFL are a competent governing body.
The 'live' cap doesn't seem to be policed very well.
There is a Castleford connection to someone who was punished long after he started rlDes Johnsonrl and it only got investigated after former player for Cas,Ned Catic,went public,after a fall-out rlStoryrl

Didn't Castleford suffer the year Wigan breached the salary cap?

This sport is the theatre of the absurd.Very depressing.

Still,I'm certain Leigh Centurions are well within the Championship salary cap.

I just think its a none starter which is sad for the British game as a whole but I will keeps clubs like Cas competitive
anyway bed time for me up for work at 4:30 enjoy your night and the rest of your season peace

So all we have to do is stipulate that a marquee player stays a marquee player through the entire duration of his stay at the club, including contract extensions. To keep the marquee pot boiling, we could put an upper limit on this of, say, 5 years.

While some people will be thinking that voting the marquee rule out is making a stand for equality, I'm not sure the clubs that voted against (although we don't know who they are yet, but I'd hazard a guess it's broadly the same clubs that voted against the golden ticket) haven't shot themselves in the foot. Clubs with money are rapacious, and it's not just Salford, but Warrington and others too. So, now they can't sign a big name Aussie, they'll look closer to home and will, instead, target a player from a less wealthy club who won't be quite as big a signing for them as the Aussie, but whose loss will be a disproportionately bigger blow to the other club. For example, what's best for Castleford: that a rapacious Warrington use the marquee exemption to sign, say, Cameron Smith, or that they sign Daryl Clark?

One of the many things Nobby left us without is an organiser. Michael Dobson fits that bill far more than Marc Sneyd does, so Dobson is a shoo-in. The choice, really, is between Sneyd and Chase and, although it's a shame to see a home grown player leave (although we're pretty used to it), from what I've seen of them both, I'd choose Rangi every time.

I was always lead to believe it was his idea so I'd be obliged to know who suggested it originally.

So why did Sneyd want to go to Hull rather than return to Salford?

Because his agent knew he could earn his client a fortune elsewhere. Koukash has said Sneyd rejected our contract offer and we weren't prepared to increase it. I dread to think what percentage his wage has increased by, but at a guess I would say 300%.

MK made it clear he only wants players who are buying into the philosophy of the club. Whether you believe him or not he also said Caton-Brown and Locke were offered more elsewhere but bought into the vision of our club.

If the clubs would concentrate on properly developing the talent available in this country, instead of constantly wanting to go for short term fixes, there would be no need for marquee players. At the end of the day, marquee players, which presumably means some big name NRL player, would be mercenaries. They wouldn't be buying into anybody's ideals or philosophies, they would be here for the big buck.

For years, most clubs have only paid lip service to player development and the result is, with so many players from elsewhere playing in the English game, The national side has gone backwards. When the RFL bites the bullet and restricts the number of overseas players while effectively promoting development, Super League will improve and so too will the prospects of the national side.

Apart from which, in view of the Aussie selection criteria, does anybody genuinely believe that an Aussie international will migrate to Super League if he makes himself ineligible for selection for his national side? Unless, of course, it's for super money. And when the pay cheque is guaranteed, without the prospect of Origin, or green and gold, what will be their motivation?

The opportunity to improve the standard of the game in this country has been passed by so many times by people who can only think short term. The franchise system was an ideal opportunity to foster and develop home grown talent without the fear of relegation. Few, if any, took advantage of this because they craved a chance of short term success. Most failed to achieve that success or the longer term benefit of having developed their own "marquee players".

Rugby League, at every level, from the RFL directors to the fans, needs to sit back and take a good look at the last twenty years and consider what it could have been if it had really tried.

And, for what it's worth, I'd take Sneyd before Chase any day. Sneyd isn't consistent yet, but he's still more so than Chase. Chase has moments of absolute magic, but has never been, and never will be, a team player. When he gets close to the line , his team mates don't know what he's going to do and he doesn't care, because he's only doing it for himself.

Occasionally he may come up with a long pass to put a winger in for a try, but I've never seen him open up a mid field defence to put a player through a gap.!

I am probably in a minority, but that's not new. Wild cards can win matches sometimes. Cohesive teams can win often.

One paper this morning stated it did not go to a vote (and where magic will be staged next year was also left out!).

For what its worth, I cannot see the marquee signing making a significant difference to the crowds. The Watkins input was in a completely different era: 3/4 TV channels, very little televised sport except racing and cricket (Match of the Day featured highlights from one match and goals from others), a culture of attendence at games, etc.
This weekend, on Sunday, you had the Grand Prix, the Tour dans jour des Tykes, and the men's Wimbledon final. It's summer with people on holiday.
Rugby league, like all sports, is becoming a TV spectator sport: as such you would be able to watch two marquee signings every time you turn on the TV.

What's the point in developing youngsters if when they're at a level of genuine class you can't afford to keep them from the mega bucks of the NRL and Union? I'm thinking of Chris Ashton, Kyle Eastmond, Joel Tomkins, Sam Burgess, George Burgess, Sam Tomkins, Lee Mossop, Mike Cooper, James Graham and so on. Are we just expected as a sport to continue developing these excellent talents only for them to leave when they reach their early twenties.

I'm hopeful the marquee exemption could stop this and allow clubs to match the 'going rate' for top rugby quality.

I agree about developing more young players but:-

1. We develop two of arguably the best British players of a generation in Tomkins and Burgess, and where are they playing now? And why did they leave? Because Superleague isn't challenging enough despite further restrictions on overseas players and a huge emphasis on youth development over many years.

2. The bigger clubs have a huge advantage over the others when it comes to attracting the very best young players. (Kind of like football where most of the best young talent want to sign for Man United, Liverpool or Arsenal etc) Plus in the past if clubs like Salford find the odd gem of a player that slips through the net they simply could't keep hold of them once they get on the big boys radar. As was the case with O'Conner, McAvoy, Ratchford, Turner and Myler etc.

3. We are only looking at one marquee player per club to either keep more top players from leaving or to sign the kind of player to enhance the profile of Superleague, raise the standard and potentially put a few more bums on seats.

The situation is the NRL and Rugby Union are leaving Superleague behind and can cherry pick any top quality players we develop. Yes we need to put a lot of effort and resourses in to developing young players but we also need to have a much stronger competition they want to stay in when others come knocking.

If we choose to keep the cap roughly where it is year after year despite the increase in Sky revenue, we are unfortunately only ever going to be a feeder competition for Rugby Union and the NRL. As for players coming for the big buck, why not? Would the English Premier League be the spectacle it is today without all these high paid foreign superstars plying there trade over here?

I don't buy all this 'Mercenary' talk with regards to marquee players. Money is one factor in that it secures a players financial future, so is rightly important. We are talking about the top 5% of players with the marquee group who are top 5% because they are professional, dedicated, and focused. The pressure to perform alone should be a big enough driving factor for them to turn out class performances. They'd be under scrutiny that other players wouldn't receive giving them further reason to perform. After all, what world-class player in their right mind would sign as a marquee player then just turn up for a paycheck? The answer is none. Their reputation is further on the line than normal if signed as a marquee player.

It should at least be implemented as a way to immediately stop the rot of our best players leaving our Competition. It would also put pressure on the NRL and RU who are the main beneficiaries. If you turn the table and have a trickle of world-class RU and NRL players going the other way it would at least plug the hole that's leaking and possibly strengthen the SL as a whole.

Too many Clubs see it as a division rather than for what it is. A poster above put it very well in that if wealthy Clubs can't trawl RU and the NRL for stars or retain their own stars they'll take them off the teams that are developing them in the domestic comp. Nobody is winning with the status quo atm.